The reading’s author contends that the claim that the vessels found in excavations were used as batteries cannot be accurate for several reasons. The lecturer, however, is not satisfied by the arguments presented in the reading passage. She refutes these arguments due to the following reasons.
First, since the local residents have found the vessels - not the archaeologists, there is a likelihood that they have also found other related objects, such as wires and other conductors, and not realizing their significance, simply thrown the objects away. Therefore, the reading’s statement that archaeologists have not found other electrical objects does not imply that these objects did not exist.
Second, the similar vessels found in the adjacent areas are not persuasive as well. Scientists have shown that Iron rod along with clay can be used for conducting electricity. There is the possibility that people had originally made the vessels for other purposes, but then switched to taking advantage of them in other ways-for instance, using them as batteries. This contradicts the reading’s argument that the vessels found in nearby cities show that they were used merely for holding sacred texts.
Third, there might have been several points in making electrical batteries. For example, people could have used these batteries to claim that they possessed magical powers since these devices gave a shock to the person touching them. In addition, the batteries might have been used for medical purposes, the same way the modern medicine uses electricity in some treatments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rguments due to the following reasons. First, since the local residents have fo...
^^^
Line 3, column 288, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...rown these objects away. Therefore, the readings statement that archaeologists have not ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 380, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...them as batteries. This contradicts the readings argument that the jars found in nearby ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, third, well, for example, for instance, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 17.0 30.3222958057 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1345.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35856573705 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66740765877 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557768924303 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4276207977 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.083333333 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9166666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.323485486322 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120528818191 0.0996497079465 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661210401778 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191338257631 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0595859501615 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.